“Anyone who kidnaps someone and either sells him as a slave or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” — Exodus 21:16, New Century Version (NCV)∴

Freedom suits are legal petitions filed by slaves for freedom. Between America’s colonial period and the American Civil War, a number of civil actions were brought to courts of law by STRONGBLACKWOMEN that challenged both the moral maxim and the legal legitimacy of JUST-SUBJECTION1 and WRONGFUL-ENSLAVEMENT2 in America. This series of columns will explore those lawsuits and expose lessons that can be engaged by the Body of Christ and the Pro-Life movement today, in the wake of the 1973 United States Supreme Court (USSC) decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

STATE OF MISSOURI CHOUTEAU V. PIERRE AND CHARLOTTE V. CHOUTEAU CASES

“In Chouteau v. Pierre it was held that ‘the system being recognized in fact, it devolved upon the plaintiff, he being a negro, to show the law forbidding it‘ (9 Mo., 3).” 3 In Charlotte v. Chouteau which was argued three times before the Missouri supreme court to settle the status of a negress whose mother was born in Canada, the court each time declared that no positive law was necessary.4 In the final hearing in 1857 it was held that ‘slavery now exists in Louisiana, Missouri, and Florida without any act of legislation introducing it, and none was necessary, for being in existence under the sanction at least of France and Spain in 1803 … it was continued, and was not dependent on any positive law for its recognition.’ 5 It was stated that the existence of slavery in fact was presumptive evidence of its legality (11 Mo., 193).6 The next time this case was tried it was held that African slavery was recognized as legal in the Spanish, French, and British colonies, though no law could be found reducing that race to bondage (21 Mo., 590).” 7

“In Chouteau v. Pierre, supra which was a suit on part of a slave for freedom, the court refused to permit a question to be put to a juror, whether he felt in conscience bound to find a verdict in favor of the freedom of the plaintiff (i.e., a negro slave), notwithstanding the law might hold him in slavery, and the refusal was held error.” — Cases Determined in the St. Louis8

“When the case of Charlotte v. Chouteau came before the Missouri Supreme Court in 1847, Justice [William Barclay] Napton stated: ‘Whatever may be the policy of other governments, it has not been the policy of this State to favor the liberation of negroes from that condition in which the laws and usages have placed the mass of their species.‘” — Robert Moore, Jr.9

“Slaves are in truth a species of property sui generis [Latin for ‘ of its own kind‘], to be held, disposed of, and regulated according to the laws of each particular state where slavery exists. In all slaveholding states color raises the presumption of slavery and until the contrary is shown a man or woman of color is deemed to be a slave.” — Judge William Barclay Napton10

While the children of the wealthy founding fathers of St. Louis, Missouri were defendants in numerous freedom suits (Missouri slaves filed petitions against the Chouteau, Cabanne, Sarpy, and Papin families), Pierre and Charlotte brought separate and parallel suits for freedom against Therese and Gabriel Chouteau.11 Both brother and sister claimed that their mother, Rose (“a negress), was born in Montreal, in Lower Canada, around the year 1768 and at a time when slavery in that country was outlawed. 12 According to legal historian Elektra Tig, Esq., “in about 1791, she was taken to Prairie du Chien, in the Northwest Territory. She remained there until about 1794. In 1795 she was taken to St. Louis. Pierre was born in Missouri, probably in the late 1790s, and lived there in slavery for over forty years. It is not clear whether Charlotte was born before or after her brother. By the 1840s, Rose was presumably dead, having lived in slavery her entire life.” 13 In both suits, Pierre and Charlotte claimed that they were free persons because their mother was born free in a country where slavery was illegal and lived in places where the Northwest Ordinance of 178714 (an ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio, and also known as the Freedom Ordinance) was enforced. Notwithstanding these facts and that both the Circuit Court of St. Louis and the Supreme Court of Missouri (between 1824 and 1837) had previously laid down the law in at least seven (7) slave freedom suits freeing slaves,15 an “ill wind of judicial activism” that meant nobody any good began to blow. In 1839 Missouri Governor Lilburn Williams Boggs,16 the sixth (6th) Governor of Missouri from 1836 to 1840, appointed William Barclay Napton, Esq. to the Missouri Supreme Court.17Judge Napton was a slaveholder himself, held strong Pro-Slavery opinions and favored overturning earlier and lesser courts rulings that might free the slaves in the state of Missouri.18 As an activist Judge favoring the legal institution of slavery in the antebellum South, Napton’s efforts began to show results by the late 1840s.19 So while the courts ruled in favor of Pierre’s 1845 petition for freedom from slaveholder Marie Therese Cerre Choteau, Charlotte’s 1847 petition for freedom from Gabriel Choteau (legally filed under the same circumstances as her brother Pierre) was turned down.20

JUDGE WILLIAM BARCLAY NAPTON’S MAJORITY OPINION!Missouri State Supreme Court Justice: “The instructions asked by the plaintiff [slave] need no particular comment. Their general spirit is not in conformity to the policy of our laws or the principles heretofore adjudicated by our courts. Whatever may be the policy of other governments, it has not been the policy of this State, to favor the liberation of negroes from that condition in which the laws and usages have placed the mass of their species. On the contrary, our statute expressly throws the burden of establishing a right to freedom upon the petitioner, and the provision is both wise and humane. Neither sound policy nor enlightened philanthropy should encourage, in a slaveholding State, the multiplication of a race whose condition could be neither that of freemen nor of slaves, and whose existence and increase, in this anomalous character, without promoting their individual comforts or happiness, tend only to dissatisfy and corrupt those of their own race and color remaining in a state of servitude. Different principles and other presumptions may be very safely and perhaps very wisely indulged in where the institution of slavery has never existed or has been entirely abolished.” 21

Interestingly, Judge Napton was an ardent Democrat22 and one of the founders of the “Central Clique” of Boons Lick politicians who gained control of the Democratic Party in Missouri in 1835.23 As one of the three (3) justices on the Missouri Supreme Court, drafted the Jackson Resolutions24 at the request of Claiborne Jackson and recorded in his diary that he intended to use the Dred Scott case to bring the principles of the Southern Address to bear on Missouri law.25 Much like the Pro-Abortion forces in the 1960s needed a federal supreme court decision to legalize BIG Abortion in every state, in the 1850sPro-Slavery forces needed the same to stem the tide of free states entering the Union and the Dred Scott freedom suit in Missouri set the stage for the perfect opportunity. At the end of the day, the other Missouri State Supreme Court Justices agreed with Napton and the focus on fixing the Dred Scott decision was on.26

Open Letter To Black America

LESSON: Anomalous Character Is Lukewarm

A Lesson We Can Learn From The Chouteau Cases

“The Negro cannot win … if he is willing to sell the future of his children for his personal and immediate comfort and safety.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. (“The Living King”, Ebony, Vol. 41, No. 3, January 1986, Page 63.)27

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth.” — Revelation 3:15,1628

First, even in the jurisdiction of free states in the North, a slave’s freedom depended upon his or her ability to prove that he or she was not a fugitive (i.e., still legally the property of his or her master under the Constitution of the United States of America).29Second, even when slaves were plaintiffs in their respective freedom suits, their presence in the courtroom seeking freedom (i.e., legal personhood) only affirmed the legitimacy of the institution of slavery.30Third, the formal acceptance of freedom suits created a state of conflicted feelings towards slavery in the public square, which often countered the will to appeal to the state for the recognition of legal personhood on the behalf of slaves.31So real was this ambivalence towards slavery that by the 1840s the Missouri Supreme Court had drifted away from its humane and moral line of legal precedent. During this time, the Missouri Supreme Court interpreted at least three (3) cases contrary to the spirit of the law 32 (i.e., the “once free, always free” doctrine upheld by Missouri courts in determining slave freedom suits). So deep was the divide in the heart of the people of Missouri, that by 1850 the Missouri Supreme Court’s heart had hardened to the point, that their 1852 Dred Scott decision was already a foregone conclusion. The history behind the freedom suits of Chouteau v. Pierre (1845) and Charlotte v. Chouteau (1847) makes it clear that when our characterbecomesanomalous or deviates from truth (John 14:6) to pursue our personal and immediate comfort and safety, we are neither free nor slave. More importantly, we learn that when our self-interests rule our decisions we are lukewarm in the eyes of God and His judgement isn’t far away.

When I think about Black America moving into the year 2014, I recall the fact that in 1960, sixty-one percent (61%) of us were married, compared to only thirty-one percent (31%) of us today and I cried for my people.33When I read in the Thursday, December 19th, 2013 Guttmacher Institute’s report that Black women have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States of America,34 I was embarrassed and knew that after 150 years of struggle between the White man and the Black man (Matthew 18:21-35), this was not the kind of freedom our forefathers and foremothers died for. When I realize that Black America is moving into the forty-first (41st) year of legalized abortion on demand in America, with over twenty (20) million Black lives already lost to abortion 35 at a 3,796 to 1 ratio when compared to the number of Black Americanslynched in America between 1864 and 196836 I grimace and recoil in horror. When I confirmed the Bureau of Justice statistics for the period from 1980 to 2008 and saw that Black Americans were six (6) times more likely than White Americans to be homicide victims and eight (8) times more likely to commit a homicide,37 my heart sank into deep disappointment and discouragement. However, when I reflected on the silence in our pulpits regarding these life-or-death issues, I experienced an unsettling sinking sensation as Ezekiel 18:2038 came to mind and I wondered out loud: Could it be true, that biblical accountability is real? Could it be true, that the son shall not be punished for his father’s sins, nor the father punished for the sins of his son? Could it be true, that the righteous person will be rewarded for his own righteousness and the wicked person rewarded for his own wickedness? Could it be true, that God will hold each of us accountable for our own deeds, our own works, and our own words? Could it be true, that the soul that sinneth, it shall die?

Yeah, I think it could.

Brothers, we need to talk.

Note(s):

∴In my very, very strong opinion, THE BIBLE DOESNOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. If pastors (christian leaders) of the South taught their congregants to obey the Mosaic laws that criminalized kidnapping human beings, the harsh treatment of servants, the return of runaway servants and without preferring the rich over the poor or men over women, held everyone accountable for their own actions in the public square, slavery would not have existed.

Kidnapping

Deuteronomy 24:7 says: “If someone kidnaps a fellow Israelite, either to make him a slave or sell him, the kidnapper must be killed. You must get rid of the evil among you.”

Harsh Treatment

Exodus 21:26,27 says: “If a man hits his male or female slave in the eye, and the eye is blinded, the man is to free the slave to pay for the eye. If a master knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, the man is to free the slave to pay for the tooth.”

Runaway Servants

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 say: “If an escaped slave comes to you, do not hand over the slave to his master. Let the slave live with you anywhere he likes, in any town he chooses. Do not mistreat him.”

The New Testament speaks equally as strong against the kidnapping of human beings (which is the basis of slavery) as the Old Testament. Please read the Apostle Paul’s warning against false teaching in 1st Timothy 1:8-10 (NCV): “But we know that the law is good if someone uses it lawfully. We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, WHO SELL SLAVES, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God.

In 1st Corinthians 7:21 the Apostle Paul directs Christians who are slaves but have the opportunity to become free to take that opportunity. How could a Christian slaveholder, or a legal system based on Christian principles, deny slaves an opportunity that the Bible commands them to take? Here is 1st Corinthians 7:21 (NLV): “Were you a servant who was owned by someone when you became a Christian? Do not worry about it. But if you are able to become free, do that.”

“Perhaps the most compelling argument AGAINST SLAVERY in the New Testament is Paul’s letter to Philemon, in which the Apostle asks Onesimus (a fellow Christian) to free his Christian slave.

“Anyone who kidnaps someone and either sells him as a slave or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” — Exodus 21:16, New Century Version (NCV)∴

Freedom suits are legal petitions filed by slaves for freedom. Between America’s colonial period and the American Civil War, a number of civil actions were brought to courts of law by STRONGBLACKWOMEN that challenged both the moral maxim and the legal legitimacy of JUST-SUBJECTION1 and WRONGFUL-ENSLAVEMENT2 in America. This series of columns will explore those lawsuits and expose lessons that can be engaged by the Body of Christ and the Pro-Life movement today, in the wake of the 1973 United States Supreme Court (USSC) decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

STATE OF MISSOURI SUMMONS FOR THE RACHEL V. WALKER CASE3

Rachel (a Black Slave) sued William Walker (a slave trader) for her freedom in St. Louis, Missouri in 1834. Rachel and her son James Henry had been the slaves of Thomas Stockton (a lieutenant in the United States Army) at Fort Snelling (present-day Minnesota) and at Fort Crawford (present-day Michigan). Please note that both military assignments were military fortifications located in free territories. William Walker planned to take Rachel and James Henry “downriver” (down the Mississippi river) to sell them in New Orleans. Rachel sued for her freedom based on having been illegally held as a slave in clearly free territories. At this point, I cannot resist mentioning that the phrase “sold down the river” originated in antebellum Mississippi in the 1800s. Apparently, slaves who didn’t like being slaves and|or caused trouble were “sold down the river” (from slave states in the North) into harsher conditions on Mississippi plantations.

Rachael v. Walker (1834) Freedom Suit

“[S]hall it be said, that because an officer of the army owns slaves in Virginia, that when as officer and soldier, he is required to take command of a post in the non-slave holding States or territories, he thereby has a right to take with him as many slaves, as will suit his interests and convenience? It surely cannot be the law; if this be true, then it is also true that the convenience or supposed convenience of the officer repeals as to him and others who have the same character, the ordinance and the act of 1821 admitting Missouri into the Union, and also the prohibitions of the several laws and constitutions of the non-slaveholding states.” — Matthias McGirk, Supreme Court Justice of the State of Missouri4

Counsel for Walker contended that Thomas Stockton (Rachel’s owner) was an officer of the United States army, under proper authority with no choice in his assignments as he served his country in the free territories of Fort Snelling and Fort Crawford.5 Counsel further contended that such orders constituted and satisfied residency exceptions in the Northwest Ordinance and that the Supreme Court of Missouri Julia v. McKinney case of 1833 drew a distinction between traveling through and residing in a free territory or state.6 As such, while Stockton held the plaintiff (Rachel) in slavery as a personal attendant to himself and to the needs of his family in free territories, such residency was of “necessity” and did not entitle Stockton to lose his slave property (Rachel) and|or entitle Rachel to her freedom.7 The Circuit Court agreed with the counsel for Walker and Rachel lost her case in the lower court. Josiah Spalding, Esq., court appointed lawyer for Rachel, appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court and won.8

JOSIAH SPALDING’S RESPONSE WAS SIMPLE!“Mr. Spalding answers this argument, by saying although this officer was bound by law and authority, to be and remain in a country where slavery is not allowed, yet no law nor public authority required nor compelled him to [bring a] person there as a slave nor as a servant.” 9

In other words, Stockton could have obeyed his orders, served his country and complied with the law without buying, owning and selling slaves. The bottom line was, Stocktonwanted a slave and was simply using his position as a United States Army officer as a thinly veiled smoke screen to skirt the law. According to Justice Matthias McGirk of the Supreme Court of Missouri, Stockton enslaving Rachael as his personal servant in a free territory was “his voluntary act, done without any other reason than that of convenience” 10 not necessity. Consequently, Stockton “and those claiming under him must be holden to abide the consquences of introducing slavery both in Missouri territory and Michigan, contrary to law. [So] the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed.” 11

Open Letter To The Pro-Life Movement

LESSON: Convenience Trumps Conscience

A Lesson We Can Learn From The Rachel v. Walker Case

“If any man thinks that the interest of these Nations and the interest of Christianity are two separate and distinct things, I wish my soul may never enter into his secret.” — Oliver Cromwell12

“I believe, that Republicans profoundly misunderstood and underestimated both the institution of slavery and the attitudes of white southerners. Slavery was not economically moribund, and southern whites, rich and poor alike, were deeply invested in it, as their tenacious defense of the institution, both during and after the war, was to show. In light of these considerations, the Republican program was thin gruel indeed.” — Elektra Tig, Esq.13

In the 1860s the Republican Party had a plan to end slavery. James Oakes is an American Historian, and a distinguished Professor of History and Graduate School Humanities Professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York where he teaches history courses on the Civil War and Reconstruction, Slavery, the Old South, Abolitionism and United States and World History.14 In his book, “Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865,” 15 Professor Oakes describes the plan and the policies the Republicans believed would ultimately end slavery. According to Oakes, “in his first major anti-slavery speech as a member of the U.S. Senate, ‘Freedom National; Slavery Sectional,’ delivered on August 1852″,16Charles Sumner, the United States Senator from Massachusetts and leader of both the anti-slavery forces in Massachusetts and the Radical Republicans in the United States Senate,17 “spelled out those policies which included the following elements: 18

Ban slavery in America by reversing Scott (Reverse Roe and Doe)

Admit no new slave states (Reverse State Level Pro-Abortion Legislation)

Buy all border state slaves and free them (Welfare And Entitlement Programs)

Restore free speech in the South (Restore Free Speech And Secure Religious Freedom)

Tax the sale of slaves and outlaw coastwise slave trading (Use IRS As A Weapon)

The above Republican plan (or approach if you will), to end slavery in 1860, seems so very much like what the Grand Old Party (GOP) is trying to do today to end abortion. I agree with legal historian Elektra Tig, Esq.,19 the Republican plan to end slavery in 1860 failed because it did not understand or at best profoundly underestimated the heart of people (Jeremiah 17:9; 20 Mark 7:21-23 21). By 1860, human slavery was a way of life for half the country. In the South, slave labor was an institution all of the slave states were willing to die for to protect and preserve which the American Civil War clearly attests to. Yeah, just like United States Army Lieutenant Thomas Stocktonwanted slaves to serve him and his family, the slave stateswanted slaves to serve them.

WHY?

Economically, the benefits of slave labor were not confined to agriculture. Slave labor would work in industries such as textiles, tobacco and cordage factories, iron works and railroad construction to only name a few.22Yeah, the slave stateswanted slavery. Geographically, wanting slave labor was not confinded to southern slave states.23Professor Kenneth Milton Stampp cites the complaint of an Austin, Texas newspaper in 1858-59 “that Texas needed at least six million more Negroes.” 24 Yes, I’m hoping the number six (6) million was hyperbole, but the point is nevertheless very well made. Yeah, the slave stateswanted slavery. Culturally, the most compelling evidence that political and economicsolutions would not end slavery was the fact that the slave states themselves had no plan to end slavery.25 By 1860 the slave states understood that freeing millions of Black slaves was not simply an untenable and|or unfeasible proposition. The slave states understood that freeing millions of Black slaves was a nightmare. The reality of the 1860s, is that no amount of political or economicmaneuvering would have ended slavery. Yeah, just like United States Army Lieutenant Thomas Stocktonwanted slaves to serve him and his family, the slave stateswanted slaves to serve them.

HISTORY IS CLEAR …

Political and economicsolutionsalonewould not and did not end slavery in America. In my opinion, there is every reason to believe that if not for the American Civil War, slavery would have continued indefinitely.26

As I pause to think about the Pro-Life movement moving into the forty-first (41st) year of legalized abortion on demand in America, the over fifty-seven (57) million27 lives lost to legalized abortion on demand in America (that’s 30% of the under forty-five (45) generation28 today) and the plight of my people (we are the abortion industry’s #1 customer,29 ugh!), Romans 1:21 comes to mind:

THE APOSTLE PAUL SAYS: “YES, THEY KNEW GOD!” “Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship Him as God or even give Him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.” — Romans 1:21 (NLT)

I WONDER …

Could it be true, that a womanwants an abortion because she does not believe that God loves her, that God loves her baby and that tangible help without judgement, hidden agendas and strings attached is a right now reality? Could it be true, that like the Republican Party on the eve of the secession crisis looking to end slavery, the Pro-Life movement is looking at ending legalized abortion on demand through political and economic prisms that blind us to seeing why a womanwants an abortion? Could it be true, that even though Christians know God and know that legalized abortion on demand is clearly and wholeheartedly an evil of extraordinary moral depravity, that some Christianswant abortion because they also know that convenience trumps conscience, that luxury trumps loyalty, and that lifestyle trumps liberty? Could it be true, that Americawants abortion because men and women view legalized abortion on demand as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card that allows them to live life without God? Could it be true, that the Democratic Partywants abortion because they understand the reality of fallen human nature better than either the Republican Party or the Pro-Life movement? Could it be true, that as long as the public views legalized abortion on demand as a necessary evil, that the political will to end legalized abortion on demand will continue to wane? Could it be true, that until the Church solves the reasons why abortion is wanted that legalized abortion on demand will not come to an end? Could it be true, that until the Pro-Life movement works together as one (1) Body in Christ, we’re working as though we want abortion? Could it be true, that Americawants abortion the same way the United States Army Lieutenant Thomas Stockton and the slave states wanted slaves? Could it be true, that just as politics and economics didn’t stop the slave states from fighting for slavery, that politics and economics won’t stop people from fighting for abortion?

Yeah, I think it could.

Brothers, we need to talk.

Note(s):

∴In my very, very strong opinion, THE BIBLE DOESNOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. If pastors (christian leaders) of the South taught their congregants to obey the Mosaic laws that criminalized kidnapping human beings, the harsh treatment of servants, the return of runaway servants and without preferring the rich over the poor or men over women, held everyone accountable for their own actions in the public square, slavery would not have existed.

Kidnapping

Deuteronomy 24:7 says: “If someone kidnaps a fellow Israelite, either to make him a slave or sell him, the kidnapper must be killed. You must get rid of the evil among you.”

Harsh Treatment

Exodus 21:26,27 says: “If a man hits his male or female slave in the eye, and the eye is blinded, the man is to free the slave to pay for the eye. If a master knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, the man is to free the slave to pay for the tooth.”

Runaway Servants

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 say: “If an escaped slave comes to you, do not hand over the slave to his master. Let the slave live with you anywhere he likes, in any town he chooses. Do not mistreat him.”

The New Testament speaks equally as strong against the kidnapping of human beings (which is the basis of slavery) as the Old Testament. Please read the Apostle Paul’s warning against false teaching in 1st Timothy 1:8-10 (NCV): “But we know that the law is good if someone uses it lawfully. We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, WHO SELL SLAVES, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God.

“Perhaps the most compelling argument AGAINST SLAVERY in the New Testament is Paul’s letter to Philemon, in which the Apostle asks Onesimus (a fellow Christian) to free his Christian slave.

Reference(s):

01. A paradox noted by Edlie Wong in her book “Neither Fugitive Nor Free” (2009), slave states had statutes that provided for slaves to sue for “wrongful enslavement”, based on slave laws that established “just subjection”, page 5 and 153 (http://bit.ly/17xS6Ty).02. Ibid.03. Rachel v. Walker Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/1fnJIIj).04. Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of the United States: 1-351 U.S; 1790, October Term, 1955, page 761 (http://bit.ly/18ERM2m).05. The State Historical Society of Missouri: Missouri State Archives, “Before Dred Scott: Freedom Suits in Antebellum Missouri” Rachel v. William Walker (1836) (http://on.mo.gov/1bI8vX0).06. Ibid.07. Elektra Tig, Esq., “Rachael v. Walker: An Officer and A Slave” (http://bit.ly/1hPmxdo).08. Ibid.09. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri: 1835/1837, Volume 4 (http://bit.ly/IRSrqn) and Elektra Tig, Esq., “Rachael v. Walker II: The Arguments” (http://bit.ly/1aZJguI).10. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri: 1835/1837, Volume 4 (http://bit.ly/1hPnAKk) and Elektra Tig, Esq., “Rachael v. Walker III: Justice McGirk Becomes Annoyed” (http://bit.ly/1h3R6ZT).11. Elektra Tig, Esq., “Rachael v. Walker III: Justice McGirk Becomes Annoyed” (http://bit.ly/1h3R6ZT).12. Oliver Cromwell, FREEDOM NATIONAL; SLAVERY SECTIONAL: Mr. Sumner’s Speech for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill (1852) by Charles Sumner, cover page (http://bit.ly/19F2FkT).13. Elektra Tig, Esq., “Was Slavery on the Way Out in 1860? The Republican Plan” (http://bit.ly/1cE7krO).14. James Oakes, The Graduate Center, CUNY (http://bit.ly/1ducLYR) and James Oakes, Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/19kxoaH).15. Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865, Amazon (http://amzn.to/1e8p8OX).16. Charles Sumner, FREEDOM NATIONAL; SLAVERY SECTIONAL: Mr. Sumner’s Speech for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill (1852) by Charles Sumner, cover page (http://bit.ly/19F2FkT).17. Charles Sumner, Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/1h3U9Bn).18. Elektra Tig, Esq., “Was Slavery on the Way Out in 1860? The Republican Plan” (http://bit.ly/1cE7krO).19. Ibid.20. Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (http://bit.ly/1bAIecb).21. Mark 7:21-23, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” (http://bit.ly/1j0CNtB).22. Elektra Tig, Esq., “Was Slavery on the Way Out in 1860?” (http://bit.ly/18GuRqB).23. Ibid.24. Kenneth Milton Stampp: The peculiar institution: Slavery In The Ante-Bellum South (http://bit.ly/1cqGT5o).25. Ibid.26. Elektra Tig, Esq., “Was Slavery on the Way Out in 1860? The Republican Plan” (http://bit.ly/1cE7krO).27. Dennis Howard, Movement For A Better America (http://bit.ly/1fnWg2r) and Dennis Howard, “No Kids No Future YouTube (http://bit.ly/1bZIUdD).28. Ibid.29. Dennis Howard, Movement For A Better America: The Abortion Index (http://bit.ly/18oqGSm), Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States”, October 2013 (http://bit.ly/1bZJLuQ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2010”, October 2013 (http://1.usa.gov/1dlO2Wv). The CDC Abortion Surveillance Report dated November 2013 (http://1.usa.gov/1bZLqRh), reveals that in 2010, 56.7% of abortions reported to the CDC nationwide were done on Hispanic and Black women. According to the report, there were 415,479 abortions for known ethnicity reported for selected states in 2010 and 153,045 (or 36.8 percent) were non-Hispanic white babies, 148,261 (or 35.7 percent) were non-Hispanic black babies, 87,240 (or 21.0 percent) were Hispanic babies, and 26,933 (or 6.5 percent) were babies of other races or ethnicities.

“Anyone who kidnaps someone and either sells him as a slave or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” — Exodus 21:16, New Century Version (NCV)∴

Freedom suits are legal petitions filed by slaves for freedom. Between America’s colonial period and the American Civil War, a number of civil actions were brought to courts of law by STRONGBLACKWOMEN that challenged both the moral maxim and the legal legitimacy of JUST-SUBJECTION1 and WRONGFUL-ENSLAVEMENT2 in America. This series of columns will explore those lawsuits and expose lessons that can be engaged by the Body of Christ and the Pro-Life movement today, in the wake of the 1973 United States Supreme Court (USSC) decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

Bill of Sale for Charlotte Dupuy from James Condon to Secretary of State Henry Clay.3

Bill of Sale from James CondonMay 12, 1806

I have this day bargained sold and delivered, and by these presents do bargain sell and deliver, to Henry Clay, for and in consideration of four hundred & fifty dollars, a negro female slave named Charlotte, aged about nineteen, which said slave I warrant & defend to said Clay against the claim of all & every person whatsoever; and I likewise warrant her to be sound.

Charlotte Dupuy’s petition to summon Secretary of State Henry Clay to court.4

To the Honbl Judges of the circuit court of the District of Columbia for the county of Washington.

The several petitions of Charlotte or Lotty Charles and Mary Ann respectfully and humbly sets forth to your honors that they are people of color who are entitled to their freedom and who are now held in a state of slavery by one Henry Clay (Secty of State) contrary to law and your petitioners just rights and that they are about to be taken out of this district and carried into the state of Kentucky, there to be held as slaves for life whereupon they severally pray your honors to grant them such releif [sic] as they may be lawfully entitled to and such process of your honorable court against the said Henry Clay as is usual in such cases to compel the attendance of the said Henry Clay in your honbl court to answer this petition and to enter the usual security and recognizance not to remove your petitioners or any of them beyond the jurisdiction of your honorable court and as in duty bound they will ever pray

Former Secretary of State Henry Clay’s letter regarding Charlotte Dupuy’s bid for freedom.5

This only represents a portion of this four-page handwritten letter.

To Philip R. FendallLexington, September 10, 1830

I received you favor of the 31t. Ulto. I approve entirely of your order to the Marshall to imprison Lotty. Her husband and children are here. Her refusal therefore to return home, when requested by me to do so through you, was unnatural towards them as it was disobedient to me. She has been her own mistress, upwards of 18 months, since I left her at Washington, in consequence of the groundless writ which she prompted against me for her freedom; and as that writ has been decided against her, and as her conduct has created insubordination among her relatives here, I think it high time to put a stop to it, which can be best done by her return to her duty. How shall I now get her, is the question?There are persons frequently bringing slaves from the district to this State, some one of whom might perhaps undertake to conduct her to Maysville, Louisville or Lexington, or some other point from which I could receive her. Or perhaps some opportunity might occur to send her from Alexandria [Va.] to N. Orleans, free from much expense, to my son in law Martin Duralde Esqr. I should be content to receive her in either way. But I cannot think of troubling you unnecessarily with this affair. Perhaps Mr. John Davis (if you would have the goodness to speak to him) would undertake to look out for some person coming in this quarter who would engage to bring her. In the mean time, be pleased to let her remain in jail and inform me what is necessary for me to do to meet the charges …

Secretary Of State Henry Clay, Sr.

“I had rather be right than be President.” — Henry Clay, Sr. 6

“An oppressed people are authorized whenever they can to rise and break their fetters.” — Henry Clay, Sr. 7

Henry Clay, Sr. (April 12, 1777 - June 29, 1852) was a very skilled orator and politician that represented Kentucky in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. He also served three (3) different terms as Speaker of the House of Representatives.8 It is note worthy to mention that Clay was chosen Speaker of the House on the first day of his first session, something never done before or since.9 Clay was a major player in America’s early history favoring the War of 1812.10 Henry Clay’s fame as the “Great Pacificator” grew as he brokered the key concessions on the slavery issue during the Nullification crisis, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Missouri Compromise of 1850.11 Many viewed Clay as the champion of Western interests which earned him the names “Henry of the West” and “The Western Star.” 12 In congressional circles, Henry Clay was also known as the leader of the “Great Triumvirate” or “Immortal Trio,” along with his colleagues Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun.13 In 1824 Clay ran for and lost his bid for the Presidency of the United States.14 When it was clear he had lost the race, Clay threw his electoral votes behind John Quincy Adams, who went on to become the 6th President of the United States of America and in turn made him Secretary of State in 1825.15 In the halls of congress, this move became widely known as: “The Corrupt Bargain.” 16According to historians David and Jeanne Heidler, Henry Clay’s personal life was exemplary.17 He was a faithful husband and doting father of eleven children.18 The record is also clear that Clay “found slavery morally troubling and ultimately regarded it as incompatible with American ideals of liberty.” 19 According to Abraham Lincoln, then the Whig leader in Illinois, Henry Clay was his “ideal of a great man.” 20 According to a 1957 Senate Committee, Henry Clay was one (1) of the five (5) greatest United States Senators, along with Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Robert La Follette, and Robert Taft in our country’s history.21Nevertheless, Henry Clay was a slave owner. His father “Sir John” Clay was a Baptist Minister and member of the elite Planter Class (men who owned twenty (20) or more slaves) in Virginia.22 In 1718, just four (4) years after Henry’s birth, “Sir John” Clay died and left his son Henry Clay, eighteen (18) slaves and four hundred and sixty-four (464) acres of land.23Henry Clay owned slaves and supported his family from the proceeds of slave labor his entire life. In 1829, when Clay was Secretary of State, he was sued by his slave Charlotte Dupuy for her freedom.24 Ultimately, the jury ruled against Dupuy. Henry Clay then had his agent in Washington (Philip R. Fendall above 25), arrest and imprison Charlotte while he made arrangements for her to be a domestic slave for his daughter and son-in-law Martin Duralde.26 This case preceded the Dred Scott case by seventeen (17) years and as anyone can imagine, received much attention in the public square. To his credit, what Henry Clay was unwillingtodo in his life time, he diddo in his death. When he died, Clay freed his slaves via his Will.27

Open Letter To The Church

LESSON: Our Walk Must Match Our Talk.

A Lesson We Can Learn From The Case Of Charlotte Dupuy

“Walk in wisdom toward them that are without [ wisdom ], redeeming the time.” — Colossians 4:5

“The hardest thing for a human being to do is to admit he [ or she ] is wrong.” — Herbert W. Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God28

Have you ever wondered why the world doesn’t hear or heed what Christians have to say? In my humble opinion, it’s because our walk doesn’t match our talk. Over the years, Christians have worked hard earning the reputation of being uncaring, undependable and lacking in character. We are viewed as hypocrites. We’re the people who don’t mind conferring advice, while at the same time, living everyday contrary to it. When the heat is on, or when our “well-being” or “welfare” is at stake, we’ll rationalize and justify our behavior while finding fault with the same behavior in others. Brothers, there is no way we can expect to be Ambassadors for Christ with lives that communicate: “Do as I say, not as I do.” While Henry Clay was an honorable man, dedicated to the Christian ideals of family and marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman, a skilled orator and legendary politician committed to the American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therewasnowayhecouldbesuccessfulconvincingslaveownerstofreetheirslaves while owning, arresting, imprisoning and financially benefiting from slaves himself. Our walk has to match our talk, because the reality is that “actions speak louder than words.” What Henry Clay “did” with his slaves in his life, spoke so much louder than what he “did” with his slaves in his death. As such, what Henry Clay “said” about the evils of slavery or even about the blessings of liberty itself in the North, was drowned out by his slave owning life style in the South. So much so was Clay’s professional life compromised by his personal life, that in the end the political and financial realities of his time were able to force him to abandon his fight to end slavery in Kentucky.

As I think about Henry Clay and the Pro-Life movement, Proverbs 29:18a comes to mind (“Where there is no vision, the people perish“) and I wonder … Could it be true, that without a visible model, that’s both tangible and objective, people will ignore logic and even physical evidence that contradicts their lifestyle? Could it be true, that without a working model, people are more than reluctant to embrace change? Could it be true, that because qualities such as kindness, faithfulness, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, loyalty, honor, dependability and even good old-fashioned manners are character traits that so few Christians exhibit there is a credibility gap between society and the Church? Hmmmmmm … Could it be true, that the glaring inconsistencies between our message and our lifestyle is responsible for our lack of power in the public square? Could it be true, that because we don’t live what we learn in His Word that no one cares what we say? Could it be true, that all of our Divinely inspired gifts and Holy Ghost powered anointing won’t make up for our lack of Christian character? Could it be true, that the world has become so disillusioned with the Pro-Life movement, that Pro-Abortion forces look more Christ-Like than we do? If Christian character is the sum of moral qualities associated with a person, I wonder, could it be true, that Christian character is more about doing what’s right when it’s hard, than it is about doing what’s right when it’s easy? I wonder, could it really be true, that until our walk matches our talk, neither the Church nor the Pro-Life movement will see an end to abortion?

Yeah, I think it could.

Brothers, we need to talk.

Note(s):

∴In my very, very strong opinion, THE BIBLE DOESNOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. If pastors (christian leaders) of the South taught their congregants to obey the Mosaic laws that criminalized kidnapping human beings, the harsh treatment of servants, the return of runaway servants and without preferring the rich over the poor or men over women, held everyone accountable for their own actions in the public square, slavery would not have existed.

Kidnapping

Deuteronomy 24:7 says: “If someone kidnaps a fellow Israelite, either to make him a slave or sell him, the kidnapper must be killed. You must get rid of the evil among you.”

Harsh Treatment

Exodus 21:26,27 says: “If a man hits his male or female slave in the eye, and the eye is blinded, the man is to free the slave to pay for the eye. If a master knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, the man is to free the slave to pay for the tooth.”

Runaway Servants

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 say: “If an escaped slave comes to you, do not hand over the slave to his master. Let the slave live with you anywhere he likes, in any town he chooses. Do not mistreat him.”

The New Testament speaks equally as strong against the kidnapping of human beings (which is the basis of slavery) as the Old Testament. Please read the Apostle Paul’s warning against false teaching in 1st Timothy 1:8-10 (NCV): “But we know that the law is good if someone uses it lawfully. We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, WHO SELL SLAVES, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God.

“Perhaps the most compelling argument AGAINST SLAVERY in the New Testament is Paul’s letter to Philemon, in which the Apostle asks Onesimus (a fellow Christian) to free his Christian slave.

The Issues4Life Foundation targets and works directly with African-American Pastors and Priests nationwide and is dedicated to addressing the issues surrounding the inviolability of human life in the African-American community.